CANARA BANK AND ORS. versus KAMESHWAR SINGH on 8 January 2020

36

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R. 36

[2020] 1 S.C.R.

A

CANARA BANK AND ORS.

v.

KAMESHWAR SINGH

(Civil Appeal Nos. 66-67 of 2020)

BJANUARY 08, 2020

[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]

Canara Bank Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal)Regulations, 1976 – Regulations 4(h), 5(3) – Respondent wasworking as Scale I officer with the appellant-bank – Put underCsuspension for misconduct by the Deputy General Manager of theBank – Order passed inflicting the punishment of compulsoryretirement – Respondent’s appeal dismissed by the AppellateAuthority – Challenged by the respondent before the High Court –Meanwhile, review of the respondent also rejected – Single JudgeDremitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsiderationconcluding that the General Manager of the Bank was justified inpassing the order in view of Regulation 5(3) – Division Bench setaside the order on the ground that the General Manager being anauthority higher to Disciplinary Authority cannot exercise the powerof the Disciplinary Authority and remitted the matter to the DeputyEGeneral Manager – On appeal, held: It is clear from the Regulation5(3) that the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higherthan it, may impose any penalties specified in Regulation 4 on anyofficer employee – In the instant case, the departmental proceedingsagainst the respondent were initiated by the Deputy GeneralFManager being the Disciplinary Authority – But the order ofpunishment was passed by the General Manager, who was higherthan the Disciplinary Authority – Having regard to Regulation 5(3),Division Bench not justified in holding that General manager hasno authority to pass the order of punishment – Order of the DivisionBench set aside and that of the Single Judge, restored.G

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1. It is clear from the Regulation 5(3), Canara BankOfficers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976that the Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than H

it, may impose any penalties specified in Regulation 4 on anyofficer employee. In the instant case, the departmentalproceedings against the respondent were initiated by the DeputyGeneral Manager being the Disciplinary Authority. But the orderof punishment has been passed by the General Manager, whowas higher than the Disciplinary Authority. Having regard toRegulation 5(3), the Division Bench was not justified in holdingthat General manager has no authority to pass the order ofpunishment. The order of the Division Bench is set aside andthe order of the Single Judge remitting the matter to theauthorised Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appealis restored. [Paras 13, 14] [40-E-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 66-67of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2017 of the High Courtof Judicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 1430 of 2013 and 849 of 2013.

Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Gautam, Ms. Sakshi Gaur, Sorabh Dahiya,Vibhu Sharma, Anmol Mehta, Adv. for the Appellants.

Gaurav Agrawal, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Canara Bank and its functionaries have filed these appealschallenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court ofJudicature at Patna in LPA Nos. 1430 of 2013 and 849 of 2013, dated14.07.2017, whereby the order of punishment passed against therespondent by the Appellate Authority, namely, the General Manager ofthe Bank, was quashed and the matter was remitted to the DisciplinaryAuthority, namely, the Deputy General Manager to proceed with theinquiry from the stage of receipt of the inquiry report and to conclude theproceedings in accordance with law.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals arethat the respondent was appointed on the post of Clerk with the Appellant-Bank in the year 1978 and was subsequently granted promotion underthe relevant rules of the bank. On 08.08.2008 the respondent was postedand working as Scale I officer of the bank at its Swarajpuri, Gaya Branch.He was put under suspension with effect from 20.09.2008 in view of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aorder passed by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank incontemplation of a departmental proceedings. The respondent was servedwith a chargesheet dated 14.02.2009 containing articles of charges andstatement of imputations to articles of charges. The respondent submittedhis explanation on 10.03.2009 denying the allegation of misconduct andpraying therein that the proceeding initiated against him may be droppedBand order of suspension passed against him may be recalled.

4. However, the Bank not being satisfied with the explanationfurnished by the respondent, decided to proceed with the departmentalproceeding initiated against him. One Shri L.N. Jha, the Senior Managerof the Bank was appointed as Inquiring Authority and one Shri S.K.CSinha, the Manager of the Bank was appointed as the Presenting Officer.A preliminary inquiry was held on 28.04.2009. Regular inquiry wascommenced w.e.f. 18.05.2009. The respondent nominated one Shri B.K.Sinha as defence representative to participate in the departmental inquiry.He participated in the said inquiry and presented the defence of theDrespondent.

5. In the departmental inquiry, four persons were examined asmanagement witnesses. One Deepak Kumar Singh was examined asdefence witness. Apart from the oral testimonies of the witnesses, somematerial documents were also produced from both sides, which wereEmarked as management exhibits and defence exhibits respectively.

6. On the basis of the materials on record, the Inquiring Officersubmitted his report dated 02.07.2009 holding the respondent guilty ofthe charges. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the respondentby letter dated 03.07.2009 issued under the signature of the DeputyFGeneral Manager and Disciplinary Authority. The respondent was calledupon to file his representation or submissions on the findings arrived atby the Inquiring Authority. Accordingly, the respondent submitted hisrepresentation/submissions. Thereafter, an order dated 18.8.2009 waspassed by the General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, wherebythe punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon the respondentGin terms of Regulation 4(h) of the Canara Bank Officers and Employees(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short ‘Discipline andAppeal Regulations, 1976’). The appeal preferred by the respondentwas dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 22.03.2010.

7. The respondent challenged the said order by filing a writ petitionHbefore the High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10295 of 2010.

During the pendency of this writ petition, review application filed by therespondent was also rejected by the Chairman-cum-Reviewing Authorityby order dated 30.07.2010. The Interlocutory Application filed by therespondent seeking amendment of the writ petition in order to assail thevalidity and correctness of the order passed by the Reviewing Authoritywas allowed by the High Court.

8. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the GeneralManager of the Bank was justified in passing the order in view ofRegulation 5(3) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976. However,the learned Single Judge found that neither the Appellate Authority northe Reviewing Authority have answered the grounds taken on behalf ofthe respondent in his appeal and review petition respectively. Therefore,the learned Single Judge remitted the matter, at the first instance, to theAppellate Authority for reconsideration of the matter as under:

“For the reasons recorded above, the matter requiresreconsideration by the specified and authorized Appellate Authorityas also the Reviewing Authority. They are under legal obligationsto decide all the issues raised and grounds taken on behalf of thepetitioner in his memo of appeal as also in review petition, whichhas not been done in the present case. Since the matter is beingremitted to the appellate authority, at the first instance, therefore,this Court is not inclined to decide other issues raised on behalf ofthe parties, which have been noted in the preceding paragraphs.”

9. The Bank has challenged this order in LPA No. 1430 of 2013before the Division Bench. The respondent has also challenged the orderof the learned Single Judge in LPA No. 849 of 2013. The Division Benchafter considering the rival contentions of the parties, has set aside theorder of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the DeputyGeneral Manager to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of receiptof the inquiry report and thereafter to conclude the proceeding inaccordance with law.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. The Division Bench has interfered with the order of the learnedSingle Judge on the ground that the General Manager being an authorityhigher to Disciplinary Authority cannot exercise the power of theDisciplinary Authority. Therefore, the Division Bench quashed the orderof punishment and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Anamely, the Deputy General Manager for fresh consideration inaccordance with law.

12. Regulation 5 of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976,provides for the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and imposepenalties, which is reproduced below:

B

“5 Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and imposepenalties:

(1) The Managing Director or any other authorityempowered by him or by general or special order mayinstitute or direct the Disciplinary Authority to instituteCdisciplinary proceedings against an officer employee ofthe bank.

(2) The Disciplinary Authority may himself institutedisciplinary proceedings.

(3) The Disciplinary Authority or any other authority higherthan it, may impose any of the penalties specified in”regulation 4 on any officer employee.

D

(Emphasis supplied)

13. It is clear from the aforesaid Regulation 5(3) that theEDisciplinary Authority or any other authority higher than it, may imposeany penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer employee. In theinstant case, the departmental proceedings against the respondent wereinitiated by the Deputy General Manager being the Disciplinary Authority.But the order of punishment has been passed by the General Manager,who was higher than the Disciplinary Authority. Having regard toFRegulation 5(3), the Division Bench was not justified in holding thatGeneral manager has no authority to pass the order of punishment.

14. In the result, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed.The order of the Division Bench impugned herein is set aside and theorder of the learned Single Judge remitting the matter to the authorisedGAppellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal is restored.

15. Parties to bear their respective costs.

H

Divya Pandey